Why not restore the Fairness Doctrine ?

[kentuck]

Wouldn't that do more than just about anything to restore ethics in our government? Yes, the TV networks would scream bloody murder. They are the ones that benefit most from the present unethical practices. But, why don't the Democrats take advantage of the present situation and plant the seeds. It's difficult to get out the truth when the networks are supportive of those that are trying to hide the truth. They control the complete message. It's time to bring down the hammer on corporate media.

[Sammy Pepys]

1. Struck down as unconstitutional

Not sure how we'd get around that.

[Lerkfish]

2. really? how is it unconsitutional?

[Selatius]

5. Here is a good link:

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html

Funny how the court wobbles over the decades...

[kentuck]

8. here is one sentence from your link:

" It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views."

You would have a right to respond to right-wing propaganda.

[Selatius]

15. True, but not with the FCC, which that statement came from

The only way to challenge the FCC is to take it to court, and the courts are rather business friendly nowadays, or you change the make-up of the FCC, which is not a likely prospect in the near future.

Even if you reinstated it through Congress, who says GWB will not veto it? Even if Clinton stacked the FCC with FD supporters, who says the pro-business courts would uphold the move if challenged?

[Sammy Pepys]

17. On top of that...

I just don't think it passes constitutional muster. Even signed, sealed and delivered with all proper legislative and executive blessing, I think the whole thing ends up going down in flames once it hits a courtroom.

[kentuck]

29. It's already been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court...

If the present Court were to overrule it, they would be over-riding precedence.

[Sammy Pepys]

31. Precedent is not immune from being overridden

Look at the history of cases involving slavery in the South. Do you think Dred Scott set precedent that should've never been overridden?

But not to get off-topic here, the reasons held the regulation was held up in 1969 would be weak reason today, and even that decision was derided at the time (had to do with the number of radio stations compared to the number of newspapers or something like that), and there questions still about whether the decision should apply differently to different forms of media. A regulation like that would be dead in the water constitutionally today, with all the potential to backfire seriously besides.

[Selatius]

33. It's not really enforceable in its current state, frankly

The two big court cases surrounding the FD pretty much gutted it. (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo and FCC v. League of Women Voters) They would simply be completing a trend that's been ongoing since the 1970s. Trying to enforce it now would be an invitation to the SCOTUS to deliver the last nail in the coffin even if it overrode Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC in '69. This is NOT the Warren Court we're living under. You're better off spending effort and tax dollars elsewhere. At least, that's what I'd say if somebody asked me on the point.

[kentuck]

18. It could go to the courts...

and the scenario you propose could likely happen. But is there any political price to pay for that?

[Sammy Pepys]

7. Thought to compel speech

The FCC enacted it to provide a forum for conflicting views to participate in debate, with the threat of license revocation if it was not observed. Most courts took a dim view of it when cases somewhat related to it came up, and the FCC dumped in the late '80s ('87 or '88). The whole point was to encourage more disucssion, but it just wasn't working, and the courts, particular the USSC, were saying that if it ever came before them chances are it would be found unconstitutional because government officials are not supposed to be the judge of fairness in media, nor should the government be able to compel the broadcast of certain views or opinions. "Chilling Effect" was a term used to described the problems with it. The FCC avoided the whole mess and took it off the books.

[kentuck]

9. The head of the FCC is appointed by the President..

The majority of the FCC can change it at any time.

[Sammy Pepys]

14. Considering the recent history of the Fairness Doctrine

I don't think anyone is going to want to touch it again. It's very iffy as a regulation. You can either hold up some kind of penalty against outlets in violation, which will end up in the coverage of controversial subjects declining (which was part of the problem with the original regulation...the media didn't want to deal with it so they stopped), or it'll be so weak that no one will pay attention to it. And I imagine plenty of groups will be lining up to challenge it, especially in todays environment with the Internet and blogs and things like that. It's not worth the the trouble, and it's Constitutionality is dubious anyway.

[kentuck]

21. If you are a TV executive...?

And you are making 100's of millions of dollars from political ads and someone wants to do away with those ads, which side would you be on? The side that wants to keep them, right? That's where we are at, unfortunately.

[Sammy Pepys]

26. Of course

But the FD was not a good regulation. It was a abused by nearly every administration from the time it was enacted until the time it was repealed. Media outlets would probably dump any commentator that got too partisan in an attempt to steer clear of the penalties that might be doled out.

[kentuck]

4. When did that happen ??

Give us the details. I thought it was shut down during the Reagan years, at the request of Limbaugh and the right wingers? Do you recall that?

[Sammy Pepys]

10. I don't know who specifically was lobbying for it to be shut down.

The courts were they major players that had big problems with it. I do remember though that Newt Gingrich wanted to have it reinstated...so it wasn't a completely left-right issue.

[kentuck]

12. It was Rush Limbaugh..

and you see where we're at now. We got the "balance".

[Sammy Pepys]

20. And Nixon too

Of course Nixon loved the thing...he used it to get people shut up all the time.

[kentuck]

22. How so? With the Fairness Doctrine?

Give an example>

[Sammy Pepys]

28. Oh hell yes

Google "Fairness Doctrine" and Nixon...you'll get a ton of stuff I bet.

[Selatius]

30. Wikipedia might shine some light on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[kentuck]

34. I agree with their final comment:

"The fairness doctrine helped reinforce a politics of moderation and inclusiveness. The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules blurred the distinctions between news, political advocacy, and political advertising, and helped lead to the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today."

[Sammy Pepys]

36. But did you catch theother stuff in there?

Does that still make you feel comfortable about it...especially since such a regulation might exist under a Republican administration at some point?

[kentuck]

37. There is no way you can argue...

that the political arena, debates included, was worse under the Fairness Doctrine, than what we have at the present time. The division we see will continue to get worse. When money controls the debate, it has the power to destroy us all. ANd we are on that track, imo..

[onenote]

39. don't think so

Pretty much no one had heard of Rush Limbaugh when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987. He was just a talk show host on a single station in Sacramento at the time. He moved to NYC in 1988 and was syndicated later that year. It might be argued that he benefited from the repeal of the FD (although that is a highly debatable point), but it highly unlikely that he had anything to do with the repeal.

onenote

[Selatius]

3. What stops GE, Viacom, Disney, and FOX Corp. from lobbying against it?

Nothing. They are corporations with the same rights as human beings in many respects. They are immortal, and they have a far longer memory than the population in general. They can campaign for years until they get what they want: Another repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

Then we're going to go through the same song and dance routine to try to have it reinstated. It's stupidity if you don't first outlaw all special interest money and institute a taxpayer subsidized election system and institute a prohibition on all 3rd party political advertisements except ads from the political candidates themselves.

[kentuck]

6. I recall the fairness within the legislation..

and how it prevented the lies and the propaganda. Because if you paid for an ad and told a lie on your political opponent, they could request free time to respond to the lies. That is no more. We lost a lot when that was permitted.

[Selatius]

11. There are ways around that

You can take a person's position and distort it to make it appear illogical without resorting to blatant lying. Swift boaters were liars, but that doesn't stop 3rd party groups from airing ads like, "John Kerry...weak on security with the wrong values for families and America."

Then if you're rich, you can flood the airwaves with that rubbish 24/7 and then complement that with advocates for your guy by asking your friends who own the newspapers, the local tv stations, and the local radio stations to put on guys supporting your guy and attacking, say, Kerry.

[kentuck]

13. No, you could not do that with the Fairness Doctrine.

The TV stations were required to give opposing viewpoints if requested - in the same amount of time allotted.

[Selatius]

19. I guess you're right on that point, but the courts all but killed it

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241) and FCC v. League of Women Voters (468 U.S. 364).

[liberalpress]

23. I was working in the business during the days of the Doctrine

.., and an earlier poster got it right. Instead of a giving a voice to different views, it stifled all viewpoints. Having to give "equal and opposite" time was a nightmare (No! HE got a minute 47 and a HALF seconds. You only offered me a minute 47. Give me my half second or I'll own this place, pal). Rather than put up with all that, stations shied away from any controversial topic and no issues were discussed.

[kentuck]

27. Then how did all the legislation get passed in the 1960's??

"..stations shied away from any controversial topic and no issues were discussed."

I'm not sure I buy that.

[Burning Water]

24. You suppose that

DU and FR and other political websites will be shut down? I really, really have problems with any limitations on political speech for anybody.

[Selatius]

35. No, since FR and DU don't endorse candidates

They're forums, not political action committees.

[Neil Lisst]

16. It's a great idea. All we need is a new president, congess, and

... Supreme Court Justices.

Followed by a new FCC.

It was a standard that stood for something, which is why the forces of evil on the right wanted it gone.

[kentuck]

32. Yep. That's all we need...

:)

[Neil Lisst]

38. Sadly, that's what it will take to get Fairness back.

It's the world turned upside down.

Free speech means spending money on campaigns to influence votes, but free speech within two miles of the president means "GO TO THE FREE SPEECH ZONE."

[Surya Gayatri]

25. Classic double bind...

Can't bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" until we regain control of Congress--can't regain control of Congress until we bring back fairness in broadcasting. :shrug: SG